Cited by 42Probiotics and Fermented FoodsListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyEssential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity

Characterization and application of antilisterial enterocins on model fresh cheese

Open access
Ribeiro, Susana C., Ross, R.Paul, Stanton, Catherine, Silva, Célia C.G.·2017·Journal of Food Protection

Abstract

Enterococcus faecalis strains isolated from an artisanal cheese were selected based on enterocin production against Listeria monocytogenes. The strains formed biofilms and presented high hydrophobic character and good autoaggregation and coaggregation capacity with L. monocytogenes. Strains L3A21M3 and L3B1K3 presented high survival under gastrointestinal conditions, were able to adhere to human intestinal cells (Caco-2 and HT-29), and blocked the adhesion and invasion of L. monocytogenes. The antilisterial activity of enterocins was not affected by pH (2 to 12), heating (100°C), and chemical and surfactant agents. However, strains L3A21M3 and L3A21M8 produced thermolabile enterocins, which were also sensible to extreme pH values. Enterocins exhibited a bacteriostatic mode of action against L. monocytogenes, and maximum production was observed during the stationary phase. Common enterocin structural genes were not detected by PCR amplification with specific primers, although an exhaustive screening was not performed. The enterocin produced by the L3B1K3 strain was purified and applied to model cheeses contaminated with L. monocytogenes. This enterocin reduced survival of L. monocytogenes on fresh cheeses in a dose-dependent manner. The highest dose tested (2,048 arbitrary units per g of cheese) was effective in reducing the pathogen counts to undetectable values throughout storage (6 to 72 h). These results suggest that these strains have great potential to be used as biopreservatives in the food industry and also as probiotics, with the potential to prevent L. monocytogenes gastrointestinal infection.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-17-031

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bacteriocin-producing LAB species such as L. plantarum, Streptococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp. have been shown to reduce L. monocytogenes and S. aureus contamination in various dairy products.

    “Such bacteriocin-producing LAB species as L. plantarum, Streptococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp. have been shown to reduce L. monocytogenes and S. aureus contamination in various dairy products [17,128,143,144,145,146].”

    From Lactic Acid Bacteria in Raw-Milk Cheeses: From Starter Cultures to Probiotic Functions (2022) · cites this paper as [146]

    The fresh-cheese results (section labeled “PCR detection of enterocins structural genes”; page unavailable) report that an enterocin from Enterococcus faecalis reduced L. monocytogenes counts in model fresh cheese. The paper does not establish the sentence’s broader claim about L. plantarum or Streptococcus spp., S. aureus contamination, or various dairy products. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ribeiro, S. C., Ross, R. P., Stanton, C., & Silva, C. C. G.
Affiliations
  • Universidade dos Açores (PT)
  • University College Cork (IE)
  • Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
Corresponding author
Silva, Célia C.G.
Venue
Journal of Food Protection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
80
Issue
8
Pages
1303-1316
ISSN
0362-028X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2734575246
Cited by
42
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Food Protection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Secretaria Regional do Mar, Ciência e Tecnologia
  • Science Foundation Ireland (SFI/12/RC/, 12/RC/2273, 12/RC/, SFI/12/RC/2273.)
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (PTDC/AGR-ALI/104385/2008)
  • APC Microbiome Institute (SFI/12/RC/2273)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
Keywords
enterocins, Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, antilisterial activity, fresh cheese, biopreservatives, probiotics, biofilm formation, cell adhesion, gastrointestinal survival
MeSH terms
Bacteriocins, Bridged-Ring Compounds, Cheese, Food Contamination, Humans, Listeria monocytogenes, Enterococcus faecalis, Caco-2 Cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review